Incidentally with Williams and Hayes both replacing non-Maori MPs, the number of MPs in Parliament of Maori descent is a record 25 out of 121, or 21% of Parliament. That is a significant over-representation. The makeup of the Maori MPs in Parliament is:

Maori seats 7

General seats 6

List seats 12

Very very hard to claim you need the Maori seats to continue, to maintain effective Maori representation in Parliament.

The Maori Party is disappointed at this week’s announcement from the Representation Commission, that no new Maori electorate will be created following the census and the Maori Option.

“Proper investment by electoral agencies in promoting Maori engagement with Parliamentary politics could have convinced another 4% of electors to join the Maori Roll, and secured an eighth Maori seat,” said Co-leaders Tariana Turia and Te Ururoa Flavell.

“The Electoral Commission’s campaign did not do enough to ensure that people were fully informed of the difference between the two rolls. The feedback we received from rangatahi is that the information provided from the Electoral Commission left them feeling that they had more choices on the general roll.”

“The Electoral Commission spent around $1.5million on the Maori Option Campaign, but measured their success based on the number of times their advertisements were viewed, not on results or ensuring that the message received by whanau were transformed into action – the action of filling in the forms and sending them back in.” . . .

It’s the Commission’s job to ensure people are informed of their options and to present the facts not to influence them one way or the other.

People are better on the general roll – most seats are smaller geographically making it easier for MPs to service and for constituents to access MPs and electorate offices.

. . . “The Maori Party will be making submissions on new boundaries for the current Maori seats – we think it is quite unrealistic for the whole of the South Island and part of the North Island to be represented by one MP, for example. The lack of access to Maori electorate MPs is a valid reason for Maori electors to opt onto the General roll – which reduces the number of Maori seats. The whole system works to disenfranchise the Treaty partner in Parliamentary politics.”

Te Tai Tonga is too big and poorer access will influence decisions on which roll to go on.

But that problem isn’t confined to Maori electorates. Some general seats are bigger than some Maori ones.

We’d all be better off if there were no Maori seats because more general seats would make all electorates smaller.

Current law allows Maori to opt for the general or Maori roll every five years, after the census.

The results could increase, or decrease, the number of Maori seats. A change could also have an impact on the number of people in general seats – increasing or decreasing the population.

Boundaries are considered after every census. The South island population is divided by 16 to get the number of people in each electorate, plus or minus 5%.

That includes the number of people in Maori seats.

There is always some change between censuses which could put seats under or over the 5% tolerance. Enabling Maori to opt for one roll or the other in isolation from consideration of all electorates could exacerbate that.

It could also allow Maori more of a say – being able to move from one roll to the other for a by-election then back for the general election, for example.

I think Maori seats have outlived their usefulness and would definitely not be in favour of allowing people to opt for a different roll any more often than every five years when the boundaries for all seats are set.

“If you are Maori and on the electoral roll, then this year you get to choose which type of electoral roll you want to vote on,” Enrolment Services national manager Murray Wicks said.

“There hasn’t been a Maori Electoral Option since 2006, so we want to make sure that Maori have access to all the information about the option and what it means before making their decision when the option period begins.

“It’s an important choice, and we want people to be confident to take part.”

I think what our people are starting to realise though is that when they voted Maori people into Labour they never got a Maori voice, they got a Labour voice and that was the difference, and they’ve only begun to realise it since the Maori Party came into parliament, because it is the first time that they have heard significant Maori issues raised on a daily basis.

Maori seats not only didn’t give Maori a voice, they gave and continue to give them inferior representation because most of them are too big to service effectively and provide constituents with ready access to their MPs.

Maori seats were created when the right to vote depended on the ownership of land. That hasn’t applied for decades and there are now more Maori MPs in general seats and on the lists than representing Maori seats.

This gives them better representation than the Maori electorates which were taken for granted until National invited the Maori Party to be a support partner in government.

The Commission had recommended the 5% threshold be cut to 4%, and abolition of the one-seat (or “coat-tail” rule). It said the one-seat rule’s effect had been to undermine the principles of fairness and equity and the primacy of the party vote in determining the overall composition of Parliament which underpin MMP. This is because it gives voters in some electorates more power than those in others. However it is hard to argue in favour of refined principles of fairness and equity so long as separate Maori seats are retained in the NZ electoral system.

Opposition MPs are keen to support the recommendation, though Labour didn’t regard the one-seat rule as a problem when it gave them the support of Peter Dunne and those he brought in on his coat tails.

Nor will they suggest there is no longer a need for Maori seats because in that case fairness and equity won’t suit them so well.